Smith v. TransUnion

Opinion

I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Alvin James SMITH, Case No.: 24-cv-1727-AGS-BJW Plaintiff} ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR y AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ECF 38) TRANSUNION, Defendant. As part of his opposition to defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, plaintiff ““demand[s]” an “evidentiary hearing by this court.” (ECF 38, at 2.) As previously explained, though, “we’re not at the proof stage of this proceeding: the pleadings are /unsettled[ and] no summary-judgment motion or trial is imminent.” (ECF 35, at 7.) When considering “a motion to dismiss,” the Court is not permitted to “consider evidence beyond” the complaint; it must instead “take as true the well-pleaded facts in the plaintiffs complaint.” Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla.,606 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 2058, 2062 (2025). Since an evidentiary hearing would not assist the Court in adjudicating the pending motion to dismiss, (see ECF 37), plaintiff’s request is denied.! This does not impact the other /arguments made in opposition, though, which are taken under advisement. Dated: October 3, 2025 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge

' Through several emails to the Court, Smith has made the same request. Smith is advised that any request for relief or action should be filed as a motion, as he appropriately here. Emails requesting relief from the court will be disregarded. Smith is also admonished to cease cc’ing the Court on emails sent to opposing counsel. The Court’s email box is for procedural assistance only. ]